Refusal for intellectual property

[grifo66]

The attached photo was denied for Intellectual property violation. Please help me find the wrong detail in the picture Thanks!

[Abambo]

Hi,

There is no problems on IP with this image as I do not see a logo or other protected elements, but you will need a model release for this one, as the face of your subject is partially visible.

[ricky336]

Hi,

I would suspect it may have something to do with the style of the hat and/or clothes.

By the way, you have some exposure issues with the hat - the whites are a bit blown out

[DrSniffy]

Similarly it would say exposure issues if if had that too, right

As you say, a rabbit hole.

[Abambo]

exposure could be a problem when resubmitted wit a model release...

[DrSniffy]

Hi Grifo66,

You need a model release for this photo.

You're thinking "but she has her head down, so can't be identified", right? Unfortunately stock sites (not just Adobe) take the view that a person could easily identify themselves from clothes, accessories and so on. For this photo I'd even say she could easily identify herself and possibly me too if I knew her.

What's problematic is that if your image was used for a product that implied something about her, she could sue for damages.

[ricky336]

If a model release was needed, the reviewers would put this into the 'reminder' section and ask for a model release. In this case, we are told it was rejected for IP violation, so therefore there must be another issue. Therefore the style of hat and clothes. But again, this could be a bit like going down the rabbit hole!

(Unless the reviewers meant to ask for a model release, but chose the IP violation by mistake.)

[Abambo]

I’ve looked at the knobs of the jacket. Even there is no logo, the hat is for sure specific, but you can buy such hats a little bit every where. Also, the clothing isn’t extraordinary I suppose there are more clothings from great designer on stock sites that we can imagine. There is no ip on this picture except for the probably home made clothing elements.

However, the person is clearly recognizable, so there is a model release needed.

[ricky336]

Perhaps...

But:

Products and objects
Commercial products (e.g., toys, fashion items, electronic devices and designer furniture) should never be in focus and/or be the main subject of the content if they're identifiable and distinctive in visual appearance, like shape or color.

The hat is a fashion accessory - it even has flowers in it. A hat is not just a hat! Take the Panama Hat. It is clearly recognisable! Although this is not a Panama Hat, I would suspect that IP rights do exist for this as well.

So. although a model release may be necessary, I think there are indeed IP rights connected with this image, so rejected accordingly.

And that being the main issue.

[Abambo]

ricky336  wrote

Perhaps...

But:

Products and objects
Commercial products (e.g., toys, fashion items, electronic devices and designer furniture) should never be in focus and/or be the main subject of the content if they're identifiable and distinctive in visual appearance, like shape or color.

The hat is a fashion accessory - it even has flowers in it. A hat is not just a hat! Take the Panama Hat. It is clearly recognisable! Although this is not a Panama Hat, I would suspect that IP rights do exist for this as well.

So. although a model release may be necessary, I think there are indeed IP rights connected with this image, so rejected accordingly.

And that being the main issue.

So you can only photograph people when they are without clothes...

The hat is a fashion element but not a distinctive. Well except when a fashion specialist can tell from the picture the hat maker. I could probably find dozends of such hats from different manufactorers. Out of memory I can remember at least 3-4 stores where I’ve sean similar hats.

Let’s wait for the OP to see if he has a model release added.

[DrSniffy]

Reading that guideline, I think it's saying "don't take a picture of [just] a hat, and if it's on someone don't make it the subject/focus of the photo". As Abambo points out, everyone would be naked otherwise and we'd have to get releases for every item of clothing lol.

Playing devil's advocate, it kind looks like it's the focus of the photo (I'd be interested to see how you titled this if it drew attention to a fashion detail? E.g. "Lady in white hat"

[Abambo]

Looking into my refusal history, I know that ip is a killer argument on all and none. Some of my refusals are quite clear, some others not that.

I had a refusal on a sign saying SOLDES (meaning SALES in French). No ip there, but someone took it as a logo.

[DrSniffy]

I had a look at a similar one I had refused (a guy with his back to the camera in an otherwise empty beach). They list "fashion items" as IP... so maybe one of those 'better to be safe decisions.

Fyi, even hand/home made stuff is IP. Just like sandcastles and graffiti

[DrSniffy]

I think they and us would benefit from a 'title' and 'description' rather than just the title, and reviewer has to guess the rest.

Like you, I've had mistaken IP and had to resubmit with a literal title to get it approved. Something silly like "Colloseum" to "Ancient Roman historical landmark called The Colosseum, over 2000 years old taken from public area and exempt from IP" lol. Catchy title.

I still have some 2000 year old brickwork they won't let through though (I gave up trying) lol

[ricky336]

Hence - the 'Rabbit hole'!

[grifo66]

Thanks for your notes, The title of the photo was basic "Peruvian peasant woman", the strange thing is that at the same time two other photos have been approved "Peruvian player on Lake Titicaca" and "Peruvian woman in traditional dress", I'm not very original , where the subjects were in profile perhaps more recognizable (Sometimes the random factor exceeds the objective one)

[Abambo]

Submissions are checked by humans, so decisions may be eratic sometimes. The rule is, when a person is clearly recognizable (or nude) a model release is required.

Well, I had a request for a model release for a group of people on bycicles riding away from the camera. Adobe accepted, Shutterstock did not. A woman jogging also opposide direction of the camera got accepted on both sites. Different others got accepted there and refused here...

The problem is probably that the moderators need to decide in a very small frame of time to accept or refuse the picture. So some pictures pass even if they should not (they get sorted out later, I suppose), others get refused.

Refusal here should really be because of a missing model release. The Peruan woman is not wearing designer clothes protected by law (even that I think that the clothes are pretty... and a designer could take his inspiration...).

[DrSniffy]

However... a material pattern can be IP/copyright and can't be reproduced. We'll never know, but maybe the reviewer thought the patterns looked too distinctive...

It's like if I took this photo and printed it on material and made it a shirt, then said it's no longer copyright as it's a homemade shirt

Edit: however, what Abambo said before.. if that was the case, no people would have clothes on lol. Might just be a mistake by the moderator...

[grifo66]

Thank you all for your comments which I will treasure for the next photo submissions.